AT LARGE: Obama has a mandate to help the middle class

Sunday

At his first press conference after his re-election as president of the United States last week, President Barack Obama was coy when asked if he had a “mandate” from the voters on Nov, 6.

At his first press conference after his re-election as president of the United States last week, President Barack Obama was coy when asked if he had a “mandate” from the voters on Nov, 6.“With respect to the issue of mandate, I’ve got one mandate,” the president said in answer to a question. “I’ve got a mandate to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class. That’s my mandate. That’s what the American people said. They said, work really hard to help us. “Don’t worry about the politics of it. Don’t worry about the party interests,” Obama added, as if that were even possible. “Don’t worry about the special interests. Just work really hard to see if you can help us get ahead, because we’re working really hard out here and we’re still struggling, a lot of us. That’s my mandate.”A mandate is a slippery thing to define, however, and even political scientists argue over just what one is.But it does not necessarily mean a president has a mandate for his agenda only if he is elected in an electoral romp, as Obama was with 330 of 538 electoral votes, or a three million-plus majority in the popular vote, like the one the president received.The novel case has also been made that a mandate would also include control by the president’s party of both the U.S. House and Senate.But that — “we still control the House” — is the case U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, fresh off his loss as the Republican nominee for vice president 10 days ago, tried to make. He said that Obama does not have a mandate because the House is still in Republican hands, even though the Democrats made modest gains of from five to eight seats in the 435-member body.But if that were the working definition of a mandate, then former President Ronald Reagan, who crushed incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H.W. Bush, who won in a landslide (another political science term that is open to debate, by the way) over Michael Dukakis in 1988, did not have mandates, since Congress was still controlled by Democrats.GOP control of the lower chamber is likely to be the case for at least several more election cycles because House districts have been gerrymandered (another good old poli-sci term, this one about which there is little disagreement) to favor sitting incumbents of both parties.An interesting set of facts turned up by The Washington Post also gives lie to the assertion that Obama won only by catering to special interest voters.The Post said exit polls show that 32 percent of Obama’s voters were white women and 24 percent of them were white men, while 23 percent were African-American men and women and 14 percent were Latinos. Yes, you read that right. Obama won more votes of white men and women — a combined 56 percent — than the 37 percent of blacks and Latinos and more startling, won more white male votes that black votes, male and female.If that is not a mandate, it at least shows a broad popularity among modern, multi-cultural, multi-racial America, which Obama can count on to support his agenda.And while Obama begged the question about a mandate with more vague talk about helping Americans “to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class,” we all know that the first battle in Congress will be over the Bush-era tax cuts set to run out on Jan. 1, at which time they would force massive slashes in domestic and military spending.The Democratic-controlled Senate has already passed legislation that would keep the tax cuts in place for 98 percent of taxpayers, while restoring the tax rate on the top 2 percent to the levels they were during the eight years President Bill Clinton was in office, a time unlike today when business and the economy were booming.“When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I’m not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don’t need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars,” Obama said firmly at his press conference. “And it’s very difficult to see how you make up that trillion dollars, if we’re serious about deficit reduction, just by closing loopholes in deductions. You know, the math tends not to work.” The president said tax hikes for the super rich was a “basic principle that was debated extensively during the course of this campaign. “If there was one thing that everybody understood was a big difference between myself and [defeated GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney, it was, when it comes to how we reduce our deficit, I argued for a balanced, responsible approach, and part of that included making sure that the wealthiest Americans pay a little bit more.”And on that point, Obama, who got a little more than 50 percent of the vote on Nov. 6, can indeed claim firm support.Exit polls showed as many as 60 percent of the voters — a figure that would have to include voters for Romney — support raising taxes on the rich.If that’s not a mandate, I don’t know what is.

Tommy Stevenson is the retired associate editor of The Tuscaloosa News. Readers can email him at beebranch@yahoo.com or call 205-292-2236.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.